DAVID MARIL: Bombing other countries becomes a casual affair

We fly over Libya and begin dropping bombs, getting involved in a civil war that some could argue has little to do with our country.

In the old days, if the president of the United States was going to order a significant military procedure, there would be a prime-time announcement on the major television networks. The commander-in-chief, sitting in the White House, would begin, “My fellow Americans ...” and explain, in confident, serious but reassuring terms, what was going to take place.

These days, as the news exploded over the Internet and cable TV that we were, at least temporarily, taking the lead on creating a no-fly zone over Libya, President Barack Obama was in the midst of a goodwill trip touring Brazil, Chile and El Salvador.

Apparently dropping bombs on another country, whether you think it’s called for or unjustified, is no longer considered a big deal. Instead of an address to the American people, we receive a few conflicting statements about how Moammar Gadhafi must go but he’s not the target of our attack.

It’s reasonable to wonder how capable are these rebels we are supporting and if they have the backing and equipment to succeed in overthrowing Gadhafi. You can’t help but be concerned this may be another Bay of Pigs operation that leaves us far short of our original objectives.

We are reassured, indirectly through Obama spokespeople, that our troops are just leading these bombing patrols for a few days, or the first week. But does anyone really believe that if Gadhafi manages to survive, our military won’t end up in another long-term commitment?

Where are all the questions from our citizenry over the rationale of engaging in three military conflicts at the same time on the other side of the world?

During the 1960s, a significant portion of our country’s population questioned foreign war policy. There were protests and peace demonstrations all over the country and marches on Washington as millions took issue with the polices of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Today, the spirit of the nation seems much more accepting – whether it’s George W. Bush or Obama – of whatever course the president and Congress authorize. War has become much less of a dividing line between Democrats and Republicans.

Most in Congress support the bombing in Libya. Some Republicans criticize Obama only for not starting the bombing sooner. Democrats, as is often the case, are doing a lot of tap-dancing around about how this is a mission to save lives and just a temporary engagement.

The general public seems concerned with knowing as little as possible about international warfare unless it affects what they pay to fill up their car and truck gasoline tanks.

Why is there so much public indifference to war?

I believe a major explanation is no longer having a military draft that has every teen registering for possible military deployment. In the 1960s, there was the pressure hanging over your head, when you turned 18, that you might be dispatched to put your life on the line for causes that seemed less clear than what we were fighting for in World War II.

While the draft was in existence, the armed forces were more representative of all segments of our society. When we were at war, the strain of having family members risking their lives on foreign soil impacted nearly everyone. Sure, wealth and political influence allowed for some exceptions and favoritism. And there were exemption categories, such as student deferments. But on the whole, war affected almost every family.

Today, with a volunteer army, the people serving know the risks when they join. Widespread outrage and anguish, outside of the families who are impacted by war, have diminished.

I’m not advocating another draft. By all accounts, the volunteers comprise an extremely professional military system. And if the numbers are there to provide the necessary depth, with people deciding on their own to serve, that’s tremendous.

But it is ironic that the abolition of the draft, which was viewed as a major step toward a more peaceful and progressive society, has actually made us more indifferent, as a nation, to war.

Which makes you wonder if the absence of a more vocal antiwar movement has removed one of the safeguards against the president and Congress becomingly too reckless and hawkish.

David Maril, an Enterprise copy editor, can be reached at dmaril@enterprisenews.